Conquer Club

qwert wrote:edit: icepack, are you sure that your results are correct, i just notice that MYTH -LOTZ you listed like 10-6,, but real score are 14-2?

not sure, i post what you give me. could have been an error on either, it was last update that the info was there but i already got rid of the copy paste from your list into mine, so the score is just left. i suppose i could have entered it wrong, but usually i just copy and paste what youve written in the other thread.

either way, easy correction for me to make. ill be sure it goes out correct this update. Thanks for catching it.

IcePack

PIG-G1 was included last update

Gilligan wrote:PIG-G1 was included last update

I posted the last 4 weeks

Updated.

IcePack wrote:

Gilligan wrote:PIG-G1 was included last update

I posted the last 4 weeks

Oh okay

Nice job Ice, thanks mate

If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar is correct. N/A means no win in last 12 months

IcePack wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar is correct. N/A means no win in last 12 months

Ah sorry, I misread him as asking about the 1 year rank (which is a - now but was N/A in May 15 ranking)

Archive

IcePack wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar is correct. N/A means no win in last 12 months

ok, thanks for explanation guys... to bad there are so many N/A's...
8/42, almost 20% didn't win a clan war in the passed 1 year ...

How long before KOA leaves the F400?

Genoke wrote:

IcePack wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar is correct. N/A means no win in last 12 months

ok, thanks for explanation guys... to bad there are so many N/A's...
8/42, almost 20% didn't win a clan war in the passed 1 year ...

That doesn't look right. What about Risk Attackers, for instance? They haven't won a full war but have won a bunch of mini wars and seem to have enough activity (123-138 overall) to warrant some kind of 'showing' for their efforts? Does the #27 clan get no credit for their 15-15 tie against the #13 clan for "Best Showing in 1 Year" purposes?

RA DB 10 2 07/06/12
RA MM 6 6 07/06/12
RA z-IGNI 7 5 07/06/12
RA LOTZ 6 6 07/06/12
RA MB 10 2 07/06/12
SOH RA 9 3 07/06/12
PACK RA 34 7 07/14/12
SOH RA 10 8 08/08/12
z-IGNI RA 9 9 08/15/12
MM RA 9 9 08/31/12
PIG RA 15 15 03/29/13
FALL RA 12 4 05/08/13
RA AOK 10 6 05/18/13
LOW RA 10 6 05/31/13
RA VDLL 13 3 06/01/13

MudPuppy wrote:

Genoke wrote:

IcePack wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Leehar wrote:

Genoke wrote:If a clan has N/A behind its name, under category "best showing in 1 year", does that mean the clan couldn't win a clan war during the whole that have passed?

It just means in the last year they haven't played enough wars to get a ranking because the weighting is too low.

No that means that they have not beat anybody in the last year in a war.

Bruceswar is correct. N/A means no win in last 12 months

ok, thanks for explanation guys... to bad there are so many N/A's...
8/42, almost 20% didn't win a clan war in the passed 1 year ...

That doesn't look right. What about Risk Attackers, for instance? They haven't won a full war but have won a bunch of mini wars and seem to have enough activity (123-138 overall) to warrant some kind of 'showing' for their efforts? Does the #27 clan get no credit for their 15-15 tie against the #13 clan for "Best Showing in 1 Year" purposes?

RA DB 10 2 07/06/12
RA MM 6 6 07/06/12
RA z-IGNI 7 5 07/06/12
RA LOTZ 6 6 07/06/12
RA MB 10 2 07/06/12
SOH RA 9 3 07/06/12
PACK RA 34 7 07/14/12
SOH RA 10 8 08/08/12
z-IGNI RA 9 9 08/15/12
MM RA 9 9 08/31/12
PIG RA 15 15 03/29/13
FALL RA 12 4 05/08/13
RA AOK 10 6 05/18/13
LOW RA 10 6 05/31/13
RA VDLL 13 3 06/01/13

I believe best showing doesn't take into consideration mini wars, ACC, etc. below 41 game "regular" wars. (while it does for the score, not for the "best in 12 month" column)

IcePack wrote:I believe best showing doesn't take into consideration mini wars, ACC, etc. below 41 game "regular" wars. (while it does for the score, not for the "best in 12 month" column)

Gotcha... Thanks, Ice. Should it? Can it? Not trying to make more work for you if it's a pain... just posing the question.

MudPuppy wrote:

IcePack wrote:I believe best showing doesn't take into consideration mini wars, ACC, etc. below 41 game "regular" wars. (while it does for the score, not for the "best in 12 month" column)

Gotcha... Thanks, Ice. Should it? Can it? Not trying to make more work for you if it's a pain... just posing the question.

Well, I think its trying to show best showing of something of substance. Not saying CL5 or mini matches dont matter (obviously they do, they're included in the scores) but i would say going 7-5 in Random League vs TOFU shouldn't be posted over, say, a regular war that you won in something else. Just because the smaller sets are a little easier to see "weird" anomalies data wise, and not as representative as a full 41 min war.

Can it? Yes...manually. Should it? I prefer not to, not just because of the additional work involved, but mainly for what I mentioned earlier. It helps give a representative sample of who they are fighting and best win to date is over the past year. While some clans might be active in leagues etc like RA, them not winning a complete war DOES tell viewers something about the activity level / chosen style of play.

And the 15-15 tie that you mentioned wouldn't be included even if i did...its a tie, not a win.

IcePack

I'm in favor of keeping results of less than 41 games off the 'top performance' column.

IcePack wrote:

MudPuppy wrote:

IcePack wrote:I believe best showing doesn't take into consideration mini wars, ACC, etc. below 41 game "regular" wars. (while it does for the score, not for the "best in 12 month" column)

Gotcha... Thanks, Ice. Should it? Can it? Not trying to make more work for you if it's a pain... just posing the question.

Well, I think its trying to show best showing of something of substance. Not saying CL5 or mini matches dont matter (obviously they do, they're included in the scores) but i would say going 7-5 in Random League vs TOFU shouldn't be posted over, say, a regular war that you won in something else. Just because the smaller sets are a little easier to see "weird" anomalies data wise, and not as representative as a full 41 min war.

Can it? Yes...manually. Should it? I prefer not to, not just because of the additional work involved, but mainly for what I mentioned earlier. It helps give a representative sample of who they are fighting and best win to date is over the past year. While some clans might be active in leagues etc like RA, them not winning a complete war DOES tell viewers something about the activity level / chosen style of play.

And the 15-15 tie that you mentioned wouldn't be included even if i did...its a tie, not a win.

IcePack

Cool, thanks for the quick answers. Is there a working link to the algorithm's script anywhere? The link listed in Farang's old thread is defunct. I wan't able to find a working link based on a some quick searches and was curious what went into the script as I don't fully understand how it's all calculated.

No problem.

I do not have a link to script posted anywhere. I'm not sure if FD ever updated his post, so I can't answer that accurately.

Cheers,
IcePack

Swifte wrote:I'm in favor of keeping results of less than 41 games off the 'top performance' column.

I don't plan to change this portion anytime soon, so no worries.

IcePack wrote:

Swifte wrote:I'm in favor of keeping results of less than 41 games off the 'top performance' column.

I don't plan to change this portion anytime soon, so no worries.

I agree, like you mentioned before:

IcePack wrote:I believe best showing doesn't take into consideration mini wars, ACC, etc. below 41 game "regular" wars. (while it does for the score, not for the "best in 12 month" column)
Well, I think its trying to show best showing of something of substance. Not saying CL5 or mini matches dont matter (obviously they do, they're included in the scores) but i would say going 7-5 in Random League vs TOFU shouldn't be posted over, say, a regular war that you won in something else. Just because the smaller sets are a little easier to see "weird" anomalies data wise, and not as representative as a full 41 min war.

You have to hand a standard after all...
Looks like we need to win a war at least once every year, otherwise...we get an N/A (which i wouldn't like)

[NC4] [R1] RET vs VVV - [31-10] of 41 - RET wins- FINAL 07/01

Swifte wrote:I'm in favor of keeping results of less than 41 games off the 'top performance' column.

im in favor of keeping resultsof less than 41 games off the ranking all together...or atleast being able to access that ranking system